"they are indistinguishable without MANDATORY "tests and scans" (for all miscarriages, including unreported miscarriages) AND some investigation to determine MOTIVE"That makes no sense, if it is unreported how could anyone know about it?
The path to a result matters when determining criminality.
In other words, there is a lot of logic to my own morality but the foundation is as simple as feelings and subjective empathy.great answerhow do you propose we moderate conflicts (and shape policy) when two or more people disagree about how they personally feel about a particular situation ?
For instance, you didn't defend your pig point the moment I called you out on it.
There is no way to practically regulate killing the unborn by self-induced abortion.
Morally it is worse to take an action that kills someone (like pushing someone into a woodchipper) than it is to merely refrain from taking an action that saves them (like refusing to donate a liver).
What evidence? The fact that killing an innocent human carries with it a sentence of multiple years in prison, if not life, or even the death penalty and is regarded as one of the worst crimes one can commit.Such punishment's are not had for not donating your liver; it is not even considered a crime (let alone a bad one).This shows that us that society view actively killing someone as far worse morally than merely refraining to save someone from death if you can. If this was not the case, we would not have such consequences for the former in comparison to the latter.There is not always a 1 to 1 comparison, but the law does tightly correlate with morality. This is why stealing and rape are illegal; they are morally repulsive (just like murder), while failing to donate organs even though people need them to live is not illegal.
I am not a legalist in totality, although, as I said, there is a correlation when it comes to the most severe moral atrocities. Also, I thought it was common sense that not donating your liver to save someone is far less of a moral atrocity then pushing someone into a wood chipper. However, if you wish to shift the debate to moral realism vs moral relativism then that's a rabbit hole I would rather not go down. It has been fun however.
Viability is irrelevant.
Yup if there were a different house the person could go to, then the obligation is lessened. However, if the person is dependent i.e they have serious cognitive dissonance, it would be immoral to force him to the other house where he will inevitably die.so, basically, if there were 100 houses, everyone could refuse and nobody would be responsible
As far as your thought experiment, it's really not a good point at all. I'll explain why later if he doesn't
Instead of reading off your script and bread trailing, could you just tell me what conclusion you are trying to get at?
Do what, author a bipartisan bill instead of a partisan bill?Why do you think Schumer felt the need to say he wouldn't compromise on the bill even though that ensured it would not pass?What leadership in either party do you think will step up and do this? Author a bi-partisan bill instead of the usual far-extreme wing BULLSHIT.
but voted against the Women's Health Act.
There isn't going to be a "bipartisan bill."
Republicans will not vote for abortion protections until viability.
Codifying Roe as-is without rolling back current state laws and restrictions would mean the heartbeat law stays in place. That is unacceptable. Democrats should not be compromising on that at all.
i'm attempting to decipher your moral framework
The only relavant facet of my moral ontology is the notion that, prima facie, a human beings right to life is superior to one's liberty.
Democrats should not be compromising on that at all.
he only relavant facet of my moral ontology is the notion that, prima facie, a human beings right to life is superior to one's liberty.so, why do you only believe a person is morally obligated to provide shelter for another human in a snow-storm
Why would viability be relevant to the moral right of an innocent human to not be killed? I fail to see how viability has any relevance.
Obviously yes, because you are responsible for the child being there. Much the same is for the case of abortion.
Obviously yes, because you are responsible for the child being there. Much the same is for the case of abortion.ok, so nobody has a "right to life" unless you're a blood relation ?
